**~** ....-- - -,-------­



### SERVED JULY 22, 2010

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF

MARIA TAVERAS, Respondent.

FAA DOCKETNO. CPI0SW0005

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0316



### ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S INITIAL DECISION 

### I.

American Airlines' Flight 423 on December 11,2007 from New York City to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, with an intermediate stop in Miami, Florida, was not a happy venture. The flight had been delayed in departing New York,1 

### and another lengthy delay took place while the aircraft sat under the broiling South Florida sun. The passengers were grumbling. Many asked the cabin crew for water. The crew decided to provide a "water service" for passengers in coach class ofthe A300 aircraft. (The first class passengers had been served drinks from the time they boarded.) Julia Sasson, a Flight Attendantwho hadbeen assigned t() work in the first class cabin, decided to go to the rear galley to help with the water service. As she did so, she passed by the left aisle seat where the Maria Taveras, the Respondent in this case, was sitting. Ms. Taveras asked**Sa~~oIJ_** 

### to bring her a glass ofwater, as shehad decided to take one ofherbloodpressure medication pills.

After Ms. Sasson reached the rear galley, the Captain called the members ofthe cabin crew and informed them that their aircraft had been

I There is some question about the New York airport at which the flight originated. The Complainant's papers said the flight left from LaGuardia Airport, while the Respondent testified that she boarded it at Kennedy Airport. This discrepancy makes no difference in the outcome ofthe case, however, because the important events tookplace on the Miami-Santo Domingo leg ofthe flight..cleared for take off. He told themto tenninate the waterservice and go to their assigned stations inpreparation for take off. Ms. Sassonproceeded backup the aisle toward the first class section ofthe aircraft, passing by the Respondent but not providingherwith the water for which she had asked. The Respondent left her seat and followed Sasson up the aisle. 2 She caught" up with her at the first class galley. Atthat point, Ms. Taveras began a lengthy and vigorous tongue-lashing, telling Ms. Sasson that she (Ms. Taveras) knew important people at American Airlines, that she could have this Flight Attendant fired, that she was (or knew) a lawyer and that she spoke four languages.

Ms. Sasson's co-worker, Jason Henderson, the purser'ttboardthe aircraft, was also inthe galley area. He attempted to get the Respondent to calm down and explained that the water service had been tenninated at the Captain's direction. ButMs. Taveras was not having any ofthis explanation. At this point, accounts differ: Mr. Henderson testified thathe gave the Respondent a glass ofwater buttold herto drinkit inthe galley, as the aircraft was about to take off. The Respondenttestified that she went into the bathroom to getthe water she needed to take her medication. Having taken it, she returned to her seat, and the rest ofthe flight to the DominicanRepublic passed uneventfully. There were approximately 285 passengers and eight crewmembers aboard.

Whenthe aircraft landed, passengers were allowed to exitthrough the forward-most door onthe left side ofthe plane. The A300 has two exit doors on each side. The forward-most door on the left side is calledthe 

### L-I door. There is also another door, the 

### L-2 door,located about six feet aft of the 

### L-I door. Onthis occasion, the 

### L-I door, which fills the largest ofthe two exits onthe left side, was closed. FlightAttendant Sasson was stationed atthe 

### L-2 door, and Purser Henderson was stationed atthe 

### L-I door. Their duties were to remain alert for events and paSsengerbehavior that might resulfin damage to the aircraft, theft ofits fittings or injury to passengers. In

. addition, they were bidding farewell to the passengers.
The Respondent, who had been seated midway onthe left aisle ofthis two-aisled aircraft, was among the passengers who were passing up the left aisle towards theexit. As she did so, she saw Ms. Sasson and again seemed

2 Witnesses differed on whether the Respondent was running or walking after Ms. Sasson. Itis unnecessary to decide which it was.

2

### agitated. Ms. Taveras decided to renew herverbal attack upon the flight attendant. As she passed Ms. Sasson's station, she remarked that ifMs. Sasson did not wish to wait upon passengers, she had chosen the wrong occupation. It

### is not clear whether Ms. Sasson replied tothis comment. It

### is' clear, however, that otherpassengers who were in line to debark had to waH" until the Respondent completed her comments. After she had passed Ms

.

.Sasson, the Respondent spun around back towards her and wrapped herright
arm around the flight attendant's neck, holding her he'ad in a headlockand twisting it towards the floor ofthe aircraft. With her left hand, Ms. Taveras reached out and ran her fingernails down Ms. Sasson's face, clawing four red marks from herhairline down towards her chin. Ms. Sasson fell to the floor, the cuts on her face bleeding. The Respondent flounced 

### off through the open L-l door and up thejetwayto the terminal. "Stop that woman! She attacked me!" yelled Ms. Sasson as other members ofthe cabin crew came to her assistance. Julieta Keegan, one of the flight attendants,Jollowed the Respondent into the terminal. Other flight attendants helped Ms. Sasson to her feet and brought her some icefot her neck

- she complained ofsoreness in her neck.' Aftertwo ofher co-workers took photos ofher bleeding face with their cell-phone cameras, Ms. Sasson

. was taken to a medical facility in the terminal for treatment. Meanwhile,

security personnel, who had been alerted by members ofthe cabin crewthat had followed Respondent into the terminal, apprehended Ms. Taveras atthe customs and immigration station.

At thatpoint, the Respondent claimed that Flight Attendant Sasson had pushed her. Both parties gave statements ofcomplaintto the terminal police and were placed in separate rooms in a holding area. Ms. Sasson was accompanied by Flight Attendant Keegan, the only Spanish-speaking'**~_** 

### member ofthe crew/ and by PurserHenderson, who was tesponsible-roithe**saf~ty** 

### and security ofthe cabin crew. In addition, a Dominican lawyerwho claimed to representthe Respondent showed up and attempted to convince Ms. Sasson not to press charges. She refused. Howhe managed to obtain
access to a supposedly "sterile" are ofthe terminal mystified the American Airlines employees and colored their view ofthe proceedings·from then on.

3 Ms. Keegan was at that time unmarried and using her maiden name, Julieta Azpurua. She was born in Venezuela and accompanied Ms. Sasson to serve as interpreterfor her.

3

### At about 3:00 a.m., Ms. Sasson and her companions were told that she could leave, and that the charges would be placed before a Magistrate the following morning. They then departed for theirhotel. On the following morning, they arrived at the courthouse. The Respondent was also there. Both women told their stories to thejudge. 4 

### After listening to them, the ''It 

### judge told Ms. Sasson that she would have to go to a Dominican Government medical facilityfor a report on her wounds. The flight attendant and her party left the courthouse and proceeded to the hospital, where they secured the report which thejudge had requested. They returned to the courthouse about 11 :00 a.m. They were then told that thejudge was at lunch and would notreturn until about 3:00 p.m. that afternoon. That left them with a choice: they were scheduled to work ona flight that

### was due to depart Santo Domingo about 2:00 p.m. That meant that they had to be ready to work one hourprior to takeoff

- about 1:00 p.m. To pursue the effort to prosecute Respondent in the Dominican Republic would have required them to miss work, and they were unwilling to do so. So they returned to the hotel, then went to the airport and boardedthe flight back to the United States. Apparently, nothing came ofthe charges lodged against the

. Respondent orMs. Sasson.

II.

On April 7,2010, theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) filed a complaint, charging Maria Taveras with violations of49 U.S.C. 

### § 46318 and 14 C.F.R. 

### § 121.580 for her conductaboard Flight 423 and seeking to recover a civil penalty of$12,000. The matter was sent to the Department's Office ofhearings and was assigned to me by a notice issuedby the Chief Judge on May 14,2010. A hearing was held New York, N.Y. on July 15,

.**~~** 

### 2010. At the hearing, the testimony ofMs. Sasson and three other members

### ~he-6ahin crew was submitted. In addition, there was testimony onbehalf ofthe·ComplaInantbYDrew Blahnik, an American Airlines pilot who was traveling in the coach cabin as a passenger "deadheading" to work aboard a flight departing from Santo Domingo. The FAAalso sponsored the testimony ofAviation Safety Inspector Patricia Mattone,who was qualified
as an expert witness on the subject ofcabin safetyandtestified about the interference with the duties ofthe cabin crew arising out ofthe incidents on December 11,2007 and on the subject ofthe appropriate penalty to be

4 Ms. Keegan translated for the flight attendant. Ms. Taveras, who was aDominican national spoke Spanish fluently.

4--- -**------------~.----.-~.-.-----**

assessed against the Respondent. The Respondent, who was represented by counsel, testified on her own behalfand was the only witness who did so.
For herpart, the Respondent acknowledged havingpursued Ms. Sassonto the first-class galley and excoriating her for not giving her a glass'" ofwater when she first asked for it. The Respondent also agreed that, on passing Ms. Sassonwhile deplaning, she had asked, "Ifyou don't like to

. take care ofpeople, why do you havethisjob" or words to that effect. Ms. Taveras testified that, inresponse to the latter comment, Ms. Sasson had pushedher, causing herto cry out, "Don'tpush mel" She also testified that she (Taveras) had pushed Ms. Sasson in the face but did so in orderto defend herself. Ms. Taveras denied having calledthe flight attendant "stupid" or saying that she spoke four languages and was a lawyer.

The testimony ofthe otherwitnesses contradicted the Respondent's version in virtually every important particular. Ms. Sassontestified that the attack on herwas unprovoked by anything she had said ordone, and she specifically denied that she hadpushed Ms. Taveras orhad done anything of that nature. Another witness was Jason Henderson, the purser, who had been stationed at the L-l door only a short distance away from where Flight Attendant Sasson was attacked. Mr. Henderson testified that Ms. Sasson had not said anything to the Respondent, norhadshe made contact with her before the Respondent's assault. Ms. Keegan testified about the aborted water service; she said that she had explained to Ms. Taveras why they could not provide water at that time. Ms. Keegan was clear onthe pointthat Taveras had threatened both her and Hendersonwith loss oftheirjobs. She did not, however, witness the attack onMs. Sasson; however, she also testifiedthat she had helped Ms. Sasson up from the floor ofthe aircraft and that Ms. Sasson was bleeding from several lacerations on her face and was complaining that herneck hurt.

Anton Veenhof, another flight attendant, witnessed-th-'-e-c'onversatlOn between Ms: Taveras and Mr. Henderson andthe other flight attendants in the first-class galley. He testified thatthe flight attendants attempted to explain to the Respondent the reasons why they could not complete the water service. The Respondent, however, would not listento them, Mr. Veenhoftestified. Veenhofalso testifiedthathe had seen the assault, and that afterthe Respondent hadMs. Sasson on the floor, she continuedto slap at her. According to Mr. Veenhof, he witnessedthis from a distance of about five feet away from the incident.

5Drew Blahnik, the deadheading American Airlines pilot, testified that he noted that Ms. Taveras seemed very agitated as she approached Ms. Sasson at the L-2 door. For that reason, he left his seat nearthe rear ofthe aircraft and attempted to head her off. Bythe time she reached the location where Ms. Sasson was standing, there were only a few passengers between-" him and the two women. Blahniktestified he heard someone say, "Don't touch me" but did notrecall whether this occurred before or after Ms. Sasson was clawed. He did say that he sawthe incident quite clearly from a distance ofeight-to-twelve feet and was certain that Ms. Sasson was not the aggressor. In his eleven-year career as a first officer with American Airlines, Capt. Blahnik said,this was the first case ofpassenger misconduct he had
seen. He described the cabin crewmembers as being "stunned"

### bythe incident.

The final FAA witness was Patricia Mattone who, as noted above, testified as an expert witness on flight attendant duties and cabin safety. She described, essentially without contradiction, that the members ofthe cabin crew, including Flight Attendant Sasson, had important duties to perform
even though the aircraft was parked and passengers were deplaning. They must, she said, be alert to deal with possible emergencies at that time that might require quick evacuation ofthe aircraft. Ifthat exigency were to arise, the performance ofthe Flight Attendant stationed at the L-2 door, as Ms. Sasson was, wouldbe critical. According to Ms. Mattone, the actions ofthe Respondent interfered with performance ofthe duties ofmany members of the crew, who were called upon the assist Ms. Sasson rather than stand their regular watches. Further, ofcourse, Ms. Sasson could not be available to perform her duties when, thanks to the Respondent, she was onthe floor of the aircraft.

Ms. Mattone also testified about the appropriate penalty to be assessed inljghtofthe FAA's policies as set forth in OrderNo. 2150.3B. She noted t at . e ctI 1 arlee table annexedto that order calls for a penalty of $1,100-$8,000 for each violation. In light ofthe factors to be considered in accordance with Chapter 7 ofOrder No. 2150.3, it was Ms. Mattone's opinion that a civil penalty of$12,000 would be an appropriate sanction.

6III.
There can hardly be a viable dispute about the critical facts in this
case. The Respondent launched and perpetrated a vicious, injurious and· nasty assault on a flight attendant who was engaged in the performance of '" her duties, thereby causingpain and injury to Ms. Sasson. The attack was inexcusable, eveniftheRespondent's story that she was pushedis believed. Passengers are commonly pushedwhen exiting crowded aircraft

- that does not make flight attendants "fair game" for physical retaliation ofthe sort that took place here. But I do not believe that Ms. Sasson, or anyone else, pushedthe Respondent. Having listenedto her tell this tale, (andto her

.attorney reiterate it), I conclude that she made it up in order to d€f1ect trouble from herself. Several percipient and credible witnesses sawthe confrontation, and all agreedthat nothing Ms. Sasson did or saidjustifiedthe Respondent's behavior.
It is worth noting, in this regard, thatnone ofthe individuals who testified as witnesses to the encounter were neophytes. Atthe time ofthis incident, Ms. Sasson hadhad some 18 years ofexperience as an American Airlines flight attendant. Mr. Henderson, the purser, hadbeen an American Airlines cabin crewmember for more than 12 years; Ms. Keegan (nee Azpurua) for about 17 years, Mr. Veenhoffornearly 18 years and Capt. Blahnik(who didnot know, and had never flown with, the members ofthe cabin crew) had been employed by American Airlines for approximately

. eight years, following a careeras a transport pilot with the U.S. Air**Force~** It

is difficult, ifnot impossible, to believe that experienced employees, accustomed to dealing for many years withpassengers from all walks oflife, would suddenly decide to enter into a conspiracy to defame and assault Ms. Taveras, especially when they were about to be relieved ofthe burden ofher presence. On the witness stand, Ms. Taveras couldnot withstand the rather mild cross-examination to which she was subjected. Ratherthan answerthe_.

__ questions ofFAA counsel directly, she lapsed into filibustering about

# he;:­ emotional state

.. She also pretended to be unable to understand simple questions inthe Englishlanguage, even though herEnglish had been rather eloquent when she was haranguing Ms. Sasson and other members ofthe

. crew about their stupidity and lack ofimmediate attention toher wants.
In short,'I find that the Respondent made an unprovoked and vicious assault on Ms. Sasson, an American Airlines flight attendant on flight 423, while the latter was engaged in the performance ofher duties.

7By doing so, the Respondent subjected herselfto liability for a civil penalty.
Section 121.580 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) states that "[n]o person may assault, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember 

### in the'"

. performance ofthe Crewmember's duties aboard anaircraft" being operated by a for-hire carrier subject to the F**AA~** sjurisdiction. Section 46301 oftitle 49, United States Code, providesthat any individual who violates a . provision ofthe FARis liable for a civil penalty notto exceed $1,100for each violation. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 

### § 46318 says that an individual who physically assaults a member ofthe flight crew or cabin crew ofa civil aircraft is liable to the U.S. Government for a civil penalty ofnot,more than $2S,000.
In Folsom's Air Service, Inc., FAA OrderNo. 2008-11 (November 6, 2008) the Administrator ruled that decisions on the amount ofthe civil penalty that shouldbe assessed must start with consideration ofthe policies set forth in FAA OrderNo. 21S0. See also, American Air Network, Inc., FAA Order No. 2006-S, FAA LEXIS 181 (2006). Inthis case, the relevant version ofOrderNo. 21S0 is OrderNo. 21S0.3B, dated July 26, 2007.
As we have noted, Complainant's witness Mattone attempted to guide
us through the rather thorny thicket that is OrderNo. 21S0.3B. In this regard, she largelyfailed. OrderNo. 21S0.3.is adifficultregulation to illuminate in general. In this case, one begins with the table found in the appendix to Chapter 7, entitled 'Sanction Guidance Policies." Figure B-3-p ofthat table deals with "Unruly passengers." The first entry specifies the penalty for 

### "(1) Interference with crewmember" in violation of

### §§ 91.11, 121.S80, 12S.328 or 13S.120 ofthe FAR. That entry clearly applies to the situationinthe present case. However, the amount ofthe appropriate civil

-____________ penalty set out in Figure B-3-p for such an offense is "Maximum," a term -wnIchlSnofVetyhelpful;lo·one attempting the learn what maximum penalty

is authorized. The next entry inthe figure reads "Physical assault offlight or cabin crewmember under 49 U.S.C. 

### § 46318" for which the authorized penalty is $1,100-$8,000. Ms. Mattone was asked whetherthis meant that a person who violates the statutory prohibition againstassaulting a crewmember was liablefor a civil penalty ofonly $8,000, while someone Who violates the FAR's prohibition ofthe same conduct was liable for a

8**-----~--**

"maximum" penalty (which,.in the case ofan individual would amount to only $1,100).5 She answered that she did not know.
It is notnecessary to untangle this conundrum in this case, however,

.because both the $8,000 and the $1,100 figures are clearly insufficient in my judgmentto provide an adequate and proper sanction for the outrageous conduct ofthe Respondent while deplaning 

### in Santo Domingo. Physical attacks on flight attendants and other members ofthe crew mustbe severely punished. See Shelley Louise Conger, FAA OrderNo. 2007-8 (August

### 2, 2007) Not only do they present a hazard tothe safety offlight, but also, if unpunished, they tend to result inthe dearth ofqualified and able people choosing to take these demandingjobs. Since, as Ms. Mattone sovividly testified, members ofthe cabin crew are important contributors to aviation safety, the traveling public would sufferifwe permitbehavior such as that displayed by the Respondent to take place withoutthe imposition ofsevere sanctions. So I have determined to depart from strict compliance with the guidance in OrderN9. 2150.3B. 6

The Complainant has asked for imposition ofa $12,000 civil penalty in this case. The FAA's position (though itnever said so explicitly atthe hearing) appears to bethat we have here an instance oftwo separate violations ofthe prohibitions on interference with the crewmembers ofan aircraft in the performance oftheir duties. I reject thathypothesis. The incident inthe first class galley before the**Airbu~** took offfrom Miami does not rise to the level ofa violation ofeitherthe statute or the regulation. As Ms. Sasson cheerfully acknowledged during her testimony, ifthe confrontation in the firstclass galley hadbeen her last interaction with the Respondent, no charges would have beenbrought against her. The Respondent's verbal attack onthe intelligence and capability ofMs. Sasson and Mr. Henderson hardly qualified her for a Miss Congeniality award. It did not, however, amount to a violation ofeither the FAR's orthe statute's prohibition on assault, intimidation or interference with a crewmember inthe performance ofhis orher duties. "Mere words" cannot, in myjudgment, constitute such a violation unless they include an imminent and credible

5 See 49 U.S.C. §46301(a)(I). The penalty would also be subjectto the inflationadjustment prescribed by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,28 U.S.C. § 2461 note and the FAA rules implementing that statute, 14 C.F.R. §13.305.
6 Itis well-settled that OrderNo. 2150.3 is not binding on administrative lawjudges, who must exercise their independentjudgment to arrive at the amount ofan appropriate civil penalty. See Northwest Airlines, Inc., OrderNo. 1990-37 (November 7, 1990 at 8; Eric Salcido, 2008 DOT Av. LEXIS 16 at n.1 (August 1, 2008) (initial decision); Lambton Doors, FAA DocketNo. CPOOSOOO13 at 9 n.44 (May 7, 2004) (initial decision).

9threat ofphysical hann amounting to a common-law assault. See David H. Mayer, FAA OrderNo. 97-12 (February 20, 1997) at 9. Cabin crewmembers are trained to defuse and deflect angry passengers, some of

.whom undoubtedly threaten to correspond with the airline's management about their treatment. That is what happened here: Ms. Taveras got her water and that was the end ofthe matter as far as the crewmembers were concerned. To suggest that they were intimidated by her is fanciful.
The Respondent's liability, therefore, arises solely from her brutal attack on Flight Attendant Sasson afterthe aircraft landed in Santo Domingo. As noted above, that attack was outrageous and malicious as to warrant a very severe sanction. Ifthe FAA had sought acivilp0naltyinthe range of$15,000-$20,000 I would have granted that application. As it is, I
am limited by law to assess no more than the amount soughtbythe complaint in this case, and I do so. The Respondent's counsel in his closing argumentcontended that there were mitigating circumstances that would warrant an assessment of less than that amount. He suggested that the Respondent's actions were not
as detrimental to safety as, say, a physical attack on the flight deck crew and that she did not commit the assault on Ms. Sasson intentionally

.. The claim that an assault on a member ofthe cabin crew has a different, and more excusable, characterthan an attack onthe pilot or first officer is a dubious assertion at best, especially when the attacktakes place after the aircraft is parked at its arrival gate. For reasons spelled out in detail above, I do not credit Respondent's claim that her unpardonable assault on Ms. Sasson was an unpremeditated effort to defend herselffrom the latter's aggression. In short, I find and detennine thatthere is no basis for any additional reduction inthe penalty that she must incur. The FAA, 

### indeciding to claim only $12,000, has given the Respondent all the consideration to which she may have been entitled. 

### IV.,

. I.n consideration ofthe foregoing, and subject to review by the AdmInIstrator on appeal, or onhis own motion, as provided in 

### § 13.233 of the Rules ofPractice, 14 C.F.R. § 13.233, ITIS ORDERED that1. Respondent Maria Taveras is liable to the United States ofAmerica
as represented by the Federal Aviation Administration·for a civil ' penalty in the amount oftwelve thousand dollars ($12:000.00); and

102. The aforesaid Respondent shall pay the amount for which she has been held liable herein to the Federal Aviation Administration forthwith.

# i~)?/J-: Isaac D. Benkin Administrative Law Judge



### [Note: This decision may be appealed to the Administrator ofthe FAA. The Notice ofAppeal must be filed not later than 10 days after service ofthis decision (plus five additional days, ifthis decision is served by mail). 14 C.F.R. §§13.233(a), 13.211(e). The appeal must be perfected with a written briefor memorandum not later than 50 days after service ofthis decision (plus five additionaldays, ifthis decision is served by mail). 14 C.F.R. §§13.233(c), 13.211(e). The Notice ofAppeal and brief
or memorandum must be either (a) mailed to the FederalAviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430, WilburWright Building-Suite2WI000, or (b) delivered personally orvia expedited courier service to the Federal Aviation Administration, 600 IndependenceAve., S.W., WilburWrightBuilding-Suite2WI000, Washington, DC 20591,Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 14 C.F.R. §§13.233(a), 13.210(a)(2), (1). A copy ofthe Notice ofAppeal and briefor memorandum should also be sentto counsel for the FAA in this proceeding. 14 C.F.R. §13.233(a).]

11FAA DOCKETNO. CP10SW0005 (Civil Penalty Action)

SERVICE LIST
ORIGINAL & ONE COpy

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1
ONE COpy

Alexei Schacht, Respondent's Counsel Nalven & Schacht, Attorneys at Law 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4022 New York, NY 10118 TEL: 212-616-5540 FAX: 212-616-5543
Yolanda AyalaBernal, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel SouthwestRegion, ASW-7E3, Y AB Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, TX 76137-0007 TEL: 817-222-5099. FAX: 817-222-5945/5092

. The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin,Administrative LawJudge

Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, DC 20590**TEL:~Attorney-Advisor** 202-366-2139**~-** . Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 IndependenceAvenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. I